Quantum Foundations

The modern view of representing a quantum observable as a semispectral measure as opposed to the traditional approach of using only spectral measures has added a great deal to our understanding of the mathematical structures and conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The old questions of 1) how to determine a quantum observable from its classical counter-part (if any), 2) how much statistical information is needed to determine an observable, 3) which observables can be measured together, and 4) are there noiseless measurements, all appear in a new perspective, calling for a study of problems such as: 1) how to obtain a semispectral measure by a quantization map, 2) do the moment operators of a semispectral measure determine the operator measure, 3) are coexistent observables jointly measurable, and 4) does minimal variance occur only in the case of a spectral measure? In my talk I will survey some of the recent developments concerning these questions and problems.

Category theory is a general language for describing things and processes - called "objects" and "morphisms". In this language, many counterintuitive features of quantum theory turn out to be properties shared by the category of Hilbert spaces and the category of cobordisms, in which objects are choices of "space" and emorphisms are choices of "spacetime". This striking fact suggests that "n-categories with duals" are a promising language for a quantum theory of spacetime. We sketch the historical development of these ideas from Feynman diagrams to string theory, topological quantum field theory, spin networks and spin foams, and especially recent work on open-closed string theory, 3d quantum gravity coupled to point particles, and 4d BF theory coupled to strings.

Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson claim to be able to derive quantum mechanics from information-theoretic axioms. However, their derivation relies on the auxiliary assumption that the relevant probabilities for measurement outcomes can be represented by the observables (self-adjoint operators) and states of a C*-algebra. There are legitimate probability theories that are not so representable --- in particular, the nonlocal boxes of Popescu and Rohrlich. We explain the impact of nonlocal boxes on the interpretation of the CBH derivation, and we discuss possible generalizations of the CBH derivation in the framework of these more general probability theories.

We will look at the axioms of quantum mechanics as expressed, for example, in the book by M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chung ("Quantum Computation and Quantum Information"). We then take a critical look at these axioms, raising several questions as we go. In particular, we will look at the possible informational completeness property of the family of operators that we measure. We will propose physical solutions based on the results of quantum mechanics on phase space and the measurement of quantum particles by quantum mechanical means. We illustrate this with both momentum-position measurements and spin measurements.

Inspired by the notion that the differences between quantum theory and classical physics are best expressed in terms of information theory, Hardy (2001) and Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson (2003) have constructed frameworks general enough to embrace both quantum and classical physics, within which one can invoke principles that distinguish the classical from the quantum. Independently of any view that quantum theory is essentially about quantum information, such frameworks provide a useful tool for exploring the differences between classical and quantum physics, and the relations between the various properties of quantum mechanics that distinguish it from the classical. In particular, we can ask: on which features of quantum physics do our familiar possibility/impossibility theorems depend? It turns out that it is possible to extend the no-cloning theorem and other results, such as the Holevo bound on acquisition of information by a single measurement, beyond the quantum setting.

While modern theories lavishly invoke several spatial dimensions within models that seek to unify relativity theory and quantum mechanics, none seems to consider the possibility that a yet-unfamiliar aspect of time may do the work. I introduce the notion of Becoming and then consider its consequences for physical theory. Becoming portrays a possible aspect of time that is "curled" very much like the extra spatial dimensions in superstring theories. Within the resulting picture of spacetime, some fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, thermodynamics and modern cosmology fit in very naturally. The proposed model is not yet a scientific theory as it still lacks a rigorous formalism and experimental predictions, yet it points out an entire family of possible theories that merit serious consideration.

Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has been generalized as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This talk will review a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory would allow for further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the examples of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the `no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The question will be raised as to whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent.

I will discuss a toy theory that reproduces a wide variety of qualitative features of quantum theory for degrees of freedom that are continuous. The ontology of the theory is that of classical particle mechanics, but it is assumed that there is a constraint on the amount of knowledge that an observer may have about the motional state of any collection of particles -- Liouville mechanics with an epistemic restriction. The formalism of the theory is determined by examining the consequences of this "classical uncertainty principle" on state preparations, measurements, and dynamics. The result is a theory of hidden variables, although it is not a hidden variable model of quantum theory because it is both local and noncontextual. Despite admitting a simple classical interpretation, the theory also exhibits the operational features of Bohr's notion of complementarity. In fact, it includes all of the features of quantum mechanics to which Bohr appeals in his response to EPR. This theory demonstrates, therefore, that Bohr's arguments fail as a defense of the completeness of quantum mechanics. Joint work with Stephen Bartlett and Terry Rudolph

Collapse models are one of the most promising attempts to overcome the measurement problem of quanum mechanics: they descibe, within one single framework, both the quantum properties of microscopic systems and the classical properties of macroscopic objects, and in particular they explain why measurements always have definite outcomes, distributed according to the Born probability rule. We will discuss some recent developments in this field: i) we will show how it is possible to formulate collapse models in such a way that the mean energy of physical system does non increse indefinitely, a typical feature of the models first proposed in the literature; ii) we will discuss recent experiments aiming at testing the validity of the superposition principle, thus of collapse models, at the mesoscopic level.

We will postulate a novel notion of probability; this will involve introducing an extra axiom of probability that seems natural from a Bayesian perspective. We will then provide an analogue of Gleason's theorem for these probabilities. We will also discuss why this approach may be useful for generalizations of quantum theory such as quantum gravity theories; this will involve discussing an analogy between Bayesian approaches and relational approaches.